Dredging the bay still needs to happen with public debate

JUST over two years ago, an independent panel submitted damning
criticism of a $12 million environmental effects statement for the
proposed Port Phillip Bay dredging project. The panel of planning
and environmental experts expressed astonishment that a detailed
study of toxic sediments at the Yarra River mouth had been
ignored.

It called for more work on sediment plumes, which could smother
bottom-dwelling microbes that clean up the wastes that run into the
bay. It said the proposed dredging technology was "not necessarily
best practice" and it questioned aspects of the channel design.

To its credit, and aware of political sensitivities, the Bracks
Government ordered more studies to be done by the Port of
Melbourne, the key stakeholder, first on the environmental risks
and second on the economic costs and benefits. Disappointingly, the
updated assessments were delayed by, among other things, last
year's state election, when the Government effectively sidelined
public debate on the issue. Such a potentially divisive matter was
apparently inappropriate for voters.

Yesterday's delayed reports by the port authority and the
Government  costed this time at an extraordinary $100 million
 are welcome for providing the long-demanded detailed
analysis that is crucial for informed discussion. Finally
Victorians can debate the merits of a project that almost certainly
will be one of the most important in determining Victoria's
prosperity.

What remains unchanged are the arguments that say a deeper
harbour is critical for the port's viability and for the state
economy. It is one of Australia's highest-priority infrastructure
projects. The Government is committed to it, as are business and
unions.

So what are the revelations from yesterday's reports? On the
economic benefits, the Government says the deepening could earn the
state $2.2 billion over 30 years, plus create 2000 jobs. There are
the added benefits of a deeper port resulting in fewer ship
movements than would otherwise be required, a positive for the
environment. All of this is extremely positive. Victoria needs a
more competitive port that can operate at world-best standards.

On the environment, despite the breadth of issues addressed,
what remains less clear

are the full risks and threats. The report does list and concede
the type of damage that almost certainly will occur, including
minor damage to seagrass, lower fish stocks in the southern bay
area, potential rock falls at the Port Phillip Heads, contaminated
sediment, and toxic sediment that will not be recovered.

But other environmental issues remain unresolved. For example,
the problem areas of turbidity and sediment appear to have been
looked at in isolation. What is the total environmental effect when
the interplay of these is taken into consideration?

The harbour-deepening project has reached a critical point. Yes,
the project now seems likely to go ahead. And, yes, this will
almost certainly be a huge positive for the economy of Victoria.
But, once again, the Government cannot afford to brush aside the
environmental critics. It must ensure that the next review panel is
truly independent as a way of allowing all views to be considered.
The process of developing an adequate understanding must be
rigorous and transparent, so Victorians can be confident the
project's economic benefits will be delivered without unacceptable
environmental costs.

The actual dredging appears to be the model of brevity: an
estimated 18 to 24 months, from (subject to approval) January 2008
to around the end of 2009. The result will allow container vessels
of up to 14 metres draught into the bay's shipping lanes at all
tides; the present depths allow for only 11.6 metres, or 12.1
metres at high tide. In simple economic terms, the bigger the ship,
the more containers it can carry; therefore, the deeper the water,
the more the new generation of container ships can use Port Phillip
Bay, and the more money and more jobs for the state.

But, and it is another essential ingredient, the Government must
tell Victorians how much the deepening will cost.

SPONSORED LINKS

1174153158966-theage.com.auhttp://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/dredging-the-bay-still-needs-to-happen-with-public-debate/2007/03/21/1174153158966.htmltheage.com.auThe Age2007-03-22Dredging the bay still needs to happen with public debateOpinionOpinionEditorial